2010/5/3 Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller / gmail.com>:
>> Then, you could argue that Ruby is even more object oriented than Java because it does not have primitive types. ¨Βμσο¬ τθασγςιπτιοξ τθατ ιτ ισιξτεςπςετεμαξηυαηεισ ατ μεασιξγοςςεγιξ τχχαωσιτ ιξσιξυατεσ τθατ ιτ ισ σμοχες τθαξ γονπιμεδ μαξηυαηεχθιγιτ ισ ξοαξιτ νισσεσθε ποιξοζ νοδεςξ ΘοτΣποΚΦΝ§χιτθ δωξανιγονπιματιοοζ βωτε γοδε ιξτο ναγθιξγοδε>
> Are you saying that I should not describe Ruby as an interpreted language? Or, should I discuss that interpreted languages can be as fast as compiled languages through advanced techniques such as hotspot compilation?
>
> The latter seems like the best option to me.. what do you think?
Sorry, that was not clear enough: the paragraph refers to your
description of Java. Java is not an interpreted language - at least
not completely.
> Thanks for your feedback.
You're welcome!
Kind regards
robert
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/